i have proof!

[Omnibus]

Well, but finally this is what it boils down to -- @Tinsel Koala claims there are internal contradictions in the discussed "theory". That should be the focus of the debate and not how we got to know what he really thinks about the theory, concealed at the beginning into an inexact definition.

[WilbyInebriated]

Well, but finally this is what it boils down to -- @Tinsel Koala claims there are internal contradictions in the discussed "theory". That should be the focus of the debate and not how we got to know what he really thinks about the theory, concealed at the beginning into an inexact definition.

"well,  "  is that all you have?  LMFAO!!!
no. this is what it boils down to: tinsel claimed "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." i called him out on this most obvious error. as usual, he refused to admit he was wrong and then simply amend his words. he instead choose to twist and squirm and ''move the goalposts', and you jumped to his defense. now, if you want to have a debate with tinsel and whomever (not me) about dave's theory, have at it, but don't go trying to tell me what my issue with tinsel is (or should be)... it makes you look stupid.

[Omnibus]

Your problem is that you don't see the wider perspective in these debates and are holding on to memorized little definitions and approaches which limit you from seeing the bigger picture. Clarifying what one meant isn't moving the goalposts but is just what it is -- clarification. You obviously feel the need to pounce on somebody and are ambushing people for slight inexactnesses in expressing their thoughts only to make a big deal out of them. By the way, it was obvious what @Tinsel Koala meant from the get go and that hasn't been answered yet.

[WilbyInebriated]

Your problem is that you don't see the wider perspective in these debates and are holding on to memorized little definitions and approaches which limit you from seeing the bigger picture. Clarifying what one meant isn't moving the goalposts but is just what it is -- clarification. You obviously feel the need to pounce on somebody and are ambushing people for slight inexactnesses in expressing their thoughts only to make a big deal out of them. By the way, it was obvious what @Tinsel Koala meant from the get go and that hasn't been answered yet.

regarding your red herring reply: your problem is that you don't understand that your "wider perspective" is irrelevant to the issue i have with tinsel's arbitrary definitions... regarding clarification: that would be fine and dandy had he admitted his error and amended his words, he decided on another way...

[Omnibus]

Clarification is enough. What is there to admit? He didn't change his opinion about the "theory" so there's nothing to apologize.